IN RE: Southern Pacific Transportation Co. Employment Practices Litigation

Case MDL No. 262 Document 2. Filed 92/04/15 Page 1 of 7
- tu, EE	< ~e A. Lo .
: RE, Conn
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL 4rp 85%, : Co oo	i ON 2 N SE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION; hy, 4 0,
IN RE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION ) Tig eug NO, 262 oo
COMPANY EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION ) he 99/77 :
OPINION AND ORDER | oo
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, Lo :EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III,
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE
PANEL.
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of sixteen actions pending in :
1/ .
two districts: fifteen in the Southern District of Texas, EE
and one in the Western District of Texas. Southern Pacific oo Co Ce
Transportation Company is a defendant in each action, and : .
various labor unions are added as defendants in four of the B
Southern District of Texas actions. Plaintiffs allege that
defendants have violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act : :
of 1964 by engaging in illegal employment practices. The Cr
complaints in the actions in the Southern District of Texas
basically allege that these discriminatory practices include
(1) failing and refusing to hire Black, Spanish-surnamed and :
female employees for higher paying, more desirable jobs and
(2) adherence to discriminatory promotional, transfer and
seniority policies. The complaint in the Western District of
1/0One of the actions now pending in the Southern District of
Texas had originally been filed in the Western District of
Louisiana. Since the Panel hearing on this matter, that ~
action was transferred to the Southern District of Texas : ’
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404 (a).

Case MDL No. 262 | Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 7
) . : -2 ~ ’ } Te
Texas action alleges that defendant Southern Pacific has = Co N a
discriminated against Blacks and Mexican Americans by oo :
maintaining unlawful employment practices in general and
unlawful hiring practices in particular.
Eleven of the fifteen actions pending in the Southern oo
District of Texas are purported class actions. Eight of . .
these purported class actions are brought on behalf of past,
present and potential Black employees of Southern pacific,”
two are brought on behalf of past, present and potential
Spanish-surnamed American employees of Southern Pacific; and
plaintiff in one action purports to represent all past, present : B 2 Co
and potential female employees of Southern Pacific. In addition, : Co
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a
"pattern and practice" suit in the Southern District of Texas
alleging systematic discrimination by Southern Pacific based : .
upon race, national origin and sex at its facilities in Houston, a: | Co
EL Paso, San Antonio and New Orleans. Finally, the action |
pending in the Western District of Texas is brought on behalf
of a class composed of Black and Mexican American persons who
have applied for employment with Southern Pacific or who are |
or might be employed by Southern Pacific.
Plaintiffs in two of the actions pending in the Southern
District of Texas move the Panel for an order transferring |
2/Plaintiffs in four of these actions have restricted the class y
they seek to represent to past, present or potential Black
employees at Southern Pacific's Houston facility. Plaintiff in
one of these four actions also purports to represent all Southe...
pacific employees who have been discriminated against because of
their age. N

Case MDL No. 262 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	3 of 7
. _ 3
9 the Western District of Texas action to the Southern District
| of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions pending there.
The EEOC and plaintiffs in five other Southern District of
Texas actions join in the motion. Only the defendant labor
unions oppose transfer.
We find that these actions raise common questions of
fact and that transfer of the Western District of Texas action
to the Southern District of Texas under Section 1407 will best
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of this Litigation.Y :
The labor union defendants argue that the actions in
this litigation do not share common questions of fact.
® Moreover, the unions contend, their interests would be unduly
prejudiced by transfer because they are parties to only four
of the actions pending in the Southern District of Texas and
are not involved in the action sought to be transferred to
that district.
These arguments are unpersuasive. A comparison of the
complaint in the Western District of Texas action with the
complaints in the actions pending in the Southern District
of Texas reveals that these actions share many common questions
of fact concerning defendant Southern Pacific's hiring and
3/The parties waived their right to oral argument and, pur-
suant to Rule 14, R.P.J.P.M.L., 65 F.R.D. 253, 264 (1975),
the question of transfer under Section 1407 was submitted
for decision on the basis of the papers filed.
® .

N | Case MDL No. 262 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	4 of 7 |
. Co 4 - . .
®
other employment practices. Indeed, the allegations by the -
EEOC encompass the allegations of all other plaintiffs in
this litigation. Moreover, the purported classes in the
Western District of Texas action and in several of the
Southern District of Texas actions present the possibility
of conflicting class determinations. Thus, transfer under
Section 1407 is necessary in order to prevent both duplication
of discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings. See In re
Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, 405
F. Supp. 308, 309 (J.P.M.L. 1975).
We note that no party to the Western District of Texas
action objects to its transfer to the Southern District of
Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings @®
with the actions pending there. The actions that include
as defendants the labor unions, the only parties which oppose
the motion before us, would be pending in the Southern District
of Texas regardless of the transfer we are herewith ordering.
Since the degree and manner of coordination or consolidation
among the various actions is solely within the discretion of
the transferee judge, see In re Equity Funding Corporation of
America Securities Litigation, 375 F. Supp. 1378, 1384 (J.P.M.L.
1974), any requests by the labor unions for individual treat-
ment should be presented to the transferee judge. In any event,
we find that the labor unions' concern about Section 1407 pro-
ceedings prejudicing their interests is wholly without merit
¢

Case MDL No. 262 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	5 of 7
g . - 5 _
because the very nature of coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 is to further the
just and efficient conduct of the entire litigation. See
In re National Airlines, Inc. Maternity Leave Practices and Flight
Attendant Weight Program Litigation, 300 F. Supp. 1405, 1407
(J.P.M.L. 1975).
The Southern District of Texas is clearly the most
appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. Fifteen
of the sixteen actions are already pending in that district.
See In re Celotex Corp. "Technifoam" Products Liability
Litigation, 68 F.R.D. 502, 505 (J.P.M.L. 1975). And the action
containing the broadest allegations, the EEOC action, is one
® of the actions already pending there. See In re Piper Aircraft
Distribution System Antitrust Litigation, 405 F. Supp. 1402,
1404 (J.P.M.L. 1975). |
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on the
following Schedule A and pending in the Western District of
Texas be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the Southern
District of Texas and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Woodrow B. Seals for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407 with the actions pending in that district and listed
| on Schedule A.
@
i

Case MDL No. 262 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 7
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 262 ®
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
V. L. Cross, etc. v. Southern Pacific Civil Action
Transportation Co., et al. No. 73-H-1074
Clyde R. Morales, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co. No. 74-H-700
Charlie Norton, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transporation Co., et al. No. 74-H-793
: Johnny Mack Brown, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co. No. 74-H-846
W. L. Jackson, etc. v. Southern Pacific Civil Action
Transportation Co. No. 74-H-847
Herbert Milburn, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co. No. 74-H-1611
Edward J. Smith v. Southern Pacific Civil Action
Transportation Co., et al. No. 75-H-90
Lillian M. Griffin, etc. v. Southern Civil Action @
Pacific Transportation Co. No. 75-H-642
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Civil Action
v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., No. 75-H-1227
et al. :
Melvin A. Obey v. Southern Pacific Trans- Civil Action
portation Co. No. 75-H~1357
David Lozano, Jr. v. Southern Pacific Civil Action
Transportation Co. No. 75-H~1789
John Boyd v. Southern Pacific Trans- Civil Action
portation Co. No. 75-H-2197
Ricardo Diaz Barron, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co. No. 76-H-224
Edward L. Downey, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co. No. 76-H-804
Vincent Alexander v. Southern Pacific Civil Action
Transportation Co., et al. No. 76-H-2105
Joseph A. Bristol, et al. v. Southern ~ Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co. No. EP 75-CA-146

Case MDL No. 262 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 7 of 7
SSSEIAL PANEL cp Te
RUTTETUOT LIRA RCE
Fie |
APR -3 158 - |
LERK OF Tur sis Po
DOCKET NO. 262 WAU TRE PANEL 72BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION JE
IN RE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
LITIGATION i EE :
ORDER REASSIGNING LITIGATION
The actions involved in the above litigation have been
reassigned from Judge Woodrow B. Seals to Judge Ross N. Stirling
in accordance with the Local Rules for the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-captioned litigation Co
be, and the same hereby is, reassigned to the Honorable Ross EE
N. Stirling for the remainder of the coordinated or consolidated g Co
pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. oe
x THE PANEL: Bh oo
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman